Fine by me. I had wanted a stronger conclusion and there is not one available.
2 likes 1mo
Sourcing · Vendor reports · continued
Revisiting: The report format the maintainers ask for, and why each field is there posts 91–109
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
The arithmetic in post #89 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
Noting that the question and the thing people usually mean by it are different.
0 likes 30d
v.szabo, post #70: This settles it for me, at least until somebody posts a reason it should not. Go to post
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.
14 likes 26d
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
1 like 25d
Structured report format: compound, lot, independent testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. One lot is one lot. It becomes a pattern at three or four, and it becomes a disputed record when asked and not explained.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
0 likes 23d
s.silva, post #63: Helpful, and short, which on this subject is harder than long. Go to post
I had written a reply contradicting post #93 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
On post #97 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
9 likes 18d
e.varga, post #19: The format we ask for is compound, lot, testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. A report missing any of those goes to the discussion rather than the record. Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice. Go to post
Fair, and the limits you put on it are the part I will remember.
Post #101 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
0 likes 13d
figure_review, post #85: Building on post #84 rather than restating it. The maintainers will ask for missing fields rather than rejecting a report. Filling them in afterwards is normal and nobody minds. Go to post
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Where you have no independent result, a documentation report is still worth filing: what the certificate contained, what it omitted, and how fast a request was answered.
It took me longer than it should have to see that.
Confirming post #105 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful.
0 likes 6d
d.fontaine, post #77: Post #75 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction. A difference inside method repeatability is not a disagreement. Saying so in your own report prevents somebody else reading it as one. Go to post
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
formulary_notes, post #54: Date the report: when the analysis was done matters. Material can degrade in storage. A report from two years ago is still useful but is not evidence about the current state of the same supplier's stock. Go to post
Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Comparing your result to somebody else's on a different lot is not a comparison of suppliers. Lot is the unit and it should be in every report.
That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
This topic was referenced in
- How the vendor documentation pages are maintained, and by whom — what changed sinceSourcing › Vendor reports · 104 replies
- [2026 update] Comparing documentation quality across the directory, tabulatedSourcing › Vendor reports · 3 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Filing a first vendor report: a worked example
Filing a first vendor report: a worked example Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Working notes on filing a first vendor rather than a conclusion. I would…
|
+1 | 5 | 12k | 15mo |
|
One lot is one lot: when a report becomes a pattern
Posting this under the heading it deserves: One lot is one lot: when a report becomes a pattern Everything below is what sits behind that. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the format the…
|
2 | 19k | 14mo | |
|
Second pass at: What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly
Second pass at: What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A question about how a record should be read rather than about…
|
+94 | 102 | 20k | 3mo |
|
Documenting a supplier's response to a discrepancy — does this still hold?
Documenting a supplier's response to a discrepancy — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Structured question about turnaround and…
|
+47 | 52 | 58k | 16mo |
|
What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly
What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. A question about how a record should be read rather than…
|
+27 | 31 | 27k | 7mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags batch & lot numbers, Janoshik Analytical, documentation quality
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Revisiting: Patterns that reliably precede a problem, documented
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: Patterns that reliably precede a problem, documented Everything below is what sits behind that. Patterns, from the point of view of someone who has read…
|
+16 | 20 | 36k | 2mo |
|
A comparison of home results against a laboratory result on the same vial — does this still hold?
A comparison of home results against a laboratory result on the same vial — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Comparison of home…
|
+2 | 6 | 15k | 11h |
|
Follow-up: Reporting a discrepancy without making an allegation
Reporting a discrepancy without making an allegation Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A follow-up question about Reporting a discrepancy that I did not know…
|
2 | 24k | 19mo | |
|
Coming back to: When a red flag was a misunderstanding, and the retraction
When a red flag was a misunderstanding, and the retraction I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Red flag — I have the observation and I do not trust my…
|
+6 | 10 | 257 | 21h |
|
Revisiting: Filing a first vendor report: a worked example
On the subject in the title: Revisiting: Filing a first vendor report: a worked example Working notes rather than a conclusion. A question about Filing a first vendor that I think has a definite answer,…
|
2 | 60k | 11mo |